Civ IV will have a 3D map! A discussion of possibilities

[VetLegion]

OK, it has been confirmed - Civ IV will have 3D graphics. We have been arguing over this for years, but that is what forums are for.

Here is what I think.

1. Tiles stay. This is not a maybe, this is a certainty.

2. Civ IV 3D map will be, and should be, designed in such a way that it allows for smooth playing without the need to rotate the camera. I argue that if camera has to be rotated, meaning some object on the map can cover other objects - the view is too zoomed in. The consequence of this assumption is that units will likely always be as tall as the tallest terrain feature and player will have a locked, sharp angle of view (Though not 90 degrees like in Civ 1 ).

3. SMAC engine does not allow for realistic presentation of earth geography. Note that I didn't say it's bad per se, but unsuited for earth geography. I think it is unlikely that it will be used for Civ IV.

4. Civ 1 graphics rule


Here is a graphic explanation of the above:




Below are some reasons why I think what I think. I've used earth geographic features for examples.

[VetLegion]

First, lets go back to the roots. This is how Civ 1 map of Asia looked like:



Nice, eh?

And here is South America. I'll use that for cross game comparison.



Here are the same features in SMAC. Asia:



Just for good measure, Europe:



And USA:



And for comparison, two screens of South America, from different maps. First:



Second:



Now comes Civ II. Very ugly, no? Functional, yes:



And to compare:




That was the retrospective! I hope you enjoyed it

Now to the future.

[VetLegion]

Here I show a relatively realistic 3D engine, well suited for modeling earth geography. Do you recognize where it is from?

I have drawn tiles by hand on the images. As I said, tiles stay, so let's see if we can make them work with such an engine. I also pasted some units to put things in perspective.

First, you have to agree this South America is prettier than all of those above (except Civ1):



The black squares represent two possible sizes for tiles, in this and other images. I don't think anything smaller than the smaller square is feasible because of rotation.

Here is Italy and Alps. Both sizes are cool:



Here is another. Note, both are too small!:



Here is another wannabe Moses. Definitely too small:



Here is the mesh for perspective:

[VetLegion]

We move to the new world.

This guy can pass I think:



How about these? I think both can:



Here, the big guy is too big, but the smaller two could work. I think:



These guys are too small. If they were behind that mountain you couldn't see them:



Now a big pic with a mesh. The priest is to small. The big square shows approximately the right tile size:



Another, more zoomed out view of the same area with proposed tile size:

[VetLegion]

Jesus, it's easier to split atom than to link to upload images
But I've mastered it

[Adagio]

The last picture:

Do you propose that we use the black squares as tiles in the game?

[VetLegion]

I think that if that mountain is od the size given in the picture (and all I wrote in the first post is true) it requires tiles of about the size I've drawn them.

Goes for most of the other pictures too. But these are just hand drawn estimates, I'm not too confident of them.

Does any picture/tile combo reflect your opinion on how Civ IV terrain should be? Post your own if you can draw. I dare you

[Max Sinister]

Wow, these graphics looked really great... it would be cool if this is what we'll get. How big are the tiles supposed to be (in km / miles)?

(The 60° limit for heights is a good idea. So we have both - impressing heights and visible units.)

[FrostyBoy]

remember that civ is turn based and that you don't need to do things on the fly

If I were Firaxis I would be looking at their new pirates II engine, enhance it and tweak it for better TBS Civ style gameplay.

[DarkCloud]

Now comes Civ II. Very ugly, no? Functional, yes:

It's only ugly because you have the grids turned on.

Civ II graphics were by far the best.

civ I was pretty dull.

But I'll admit, Civ I beat SMAC by yards

The units on the Railroad Tycoon II map just didn't look realistic- nor do I think they could be made to look realistic- when I think of 3D maps, I think of Call To Power and call to power was a bit absurd in how it portrayed their units on the world.

Landscapes and mountains and vistas are just too large and people are just too small for the proportions to work out correctly. It's always going to look a bit strange. That's why 2D squares/units are the best (even if they won't sell in today's marketplace)

The best way that civ could do their map-squares (if they HAVE to go 3d) is in a semi-3D Age of Empires sort of way... I think that would look reasonably good... maybe...

Personally, I think that the 3D that requires rotation would make for the best visible-units (as in looking good), but would make it very hard to play the game.

However, another suggestion is to use an isometeric perspective of the world, sort of warping everything- then you could use the full 3D where things are more proportional, and could see things- sort of like Populous 3D or Black and White (and a little like Empire Earth)

What do you think about that?

[Tassadar500]

Civ I reminds me of Mario

[Jon Shafer]

I really don't see anything being implimented that requires rotation.

As MP will be built in to Civ 4 from the get-go, having to rotate in mid-turn or mid-battle (RTS-esque) would be a bug if I've ever heard of one. And I doubt I'm the only one who has thought of this issue.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by Sn00py
remember that civ is turn based and that you don't need to do things on the fly

I'd agree with Trip. Think of multiplayer. Thankfully this game will have multiplayer from the begining and contrary to popular belief, Civ does get hectic in multiplayer.

If I were Firaxis I would be looking at their new pirates II engine, enhance it and tweak it for better TBS Civ style gameplay.

Could very well be. Why should a company develop two 3D engines? It makes sense to use the one from Pirates.

[VetLegion]

Originally posted by DarkCloud

It's only ugly because you have the grids turned on.

Civ II graphics were by far the best.

civ I was pretty dull.

But I'll admit, Civ I beat SMAC by yards

Civ 1 had vawes man, VAWES!!
Case closed.

Landscapes and mountains and vistas are just too large and people are just too small for the proportions to work out correctly. It's always going to look a bit strange. That's why 2D squares/units are the best (even if they won't sell in today's marketplace)

I agree. No realism in depicting units, and even little realism in depicting cities. It was always so in the genre and I think it will remain so in 3D.

But terrain itself could for the first time become more realistic. 3D will allow for more variation and I think it is reasonable to expect realistic proportions between land features themselves. Himalayas being twice as high as the Alps and such, instead of both being represented by generic "Mountain" tile drawing.

Personally, I think that the 3D that requires rotation would make for the best visible-units (as in looking good), but would make it very hard to play the game.

Exactly.

However, another suggestion is to use an isometeric perspective of the world, sort of warping everything- then you could use the full 3D where things are more proportional, and could see things- sort of like Populous 3D or Black and White (and a little like Empire Earth)

What do you think about that?

I haven't played any of those so I can't picture it. Picture of how it would look?

[DarkCloud]

here's one populous link:

http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=www.mbnet.fi/pelihalli/kuvat/peliarvostelut/populous.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.mbnet.fi/pelihalli/pelit/naytakuva.asp%3FPeli%3D628%26Kuva%3D637&h=375&w=500&sz=46&tbnid=hGidIyb2ARsJ:&tbnh=95&tbnw=126&start=8&prev=/images%3Fq%3D%2522populous%2522%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8

(you might want to cut and past it into your addressbar instead of typing it out )

Here's another:

http://edomekuvat.soneraplaza.fi/kolumni_remasterointi/populous.jpg

this is an old populous image from 1992, but it is one example of how semi 3-d might work for Civ IV.

Here's another Pop-shot: http://www.alacn.hpg.ig.com.br/landscape.jpg

Here's 2 for black and white:

http://www.game-revolution.com/previews/featured/black_and_white4b.jpg

http://www.game-revolution.com/previews/featured/black_and_white6b.jpg

--

Personally, I still prefer 2D, but if they have to go 3D, I think vistas like these would work best- isometeric as opposed to Railroad Tycoon II's topdown, because if it was top-down then the units would be squashed too much